chickentv WHY?????? Why DOES THIS even be called good? How did they waste 6 million dollars on this thing. Like you actually spend 7 bucks for this DVD at Shopko. Waste of 7 bucks!

Thanos Karagioras "Hostel: Part III" is a mystery thriller movie and also the third movie of the "Hostel" franchise in which we watch four men attending a bachelor party in Las Vegas and seduced by two sexy escorts who invite them to a private party where they were kidnapped by the Elite Hunting Club. Suddenly they become subjects - toys of an evil game and they are simply helpless. Once more I was disappointed by that kind of movies and from this franchise. I have to admit that for one more time I was expecting more from this franchise and of course I was disappointed by it as I was with the second movie. I could not believe or even think that the third movie could be worse than the second but I was wrong. The direction which was made by Scott Spiegel this time and not Eli Roth was below average and with no many breathtaking scenes. The plot was boring and did not keep me alert like with the two previous movies. The main idea of this franchise was changed a bit in this movie and some new things added but unfortunately were not enough. To sum up, I have to say that "Hostel: Part III" is not a movie that will blow your mind and if you have watched the previous two movies then you are going to be disappointed by it for sure. This franchise has to finish in this movie because I believe that it does not have anything more to give to the audience. Everything was covered from the two previous movies so, I would like to say that I don't recommend this movie for anyone to see it and especially to those who have already watched the two previous movies.

Andrew Gold Hostel is one of the most baffling horror franchises I've ever seen. For one, it's easy to lump the movies into the "torture porn" category, and that was my initial reaction after seeing the first one, but the more I think back on it, the more I appreciate what it was going for. It's an admittedly smart movie, as was Part II (which was basically Hostel with a female cast), that showed how ignorance and gullibility can lead to serious consequences. Hostel: Part III is radically different from the first two though. First of all, it doesn't take place in Slovakia - it's in Las Vegas. It's also not nearly as heavy on gore as its predecessors. It centers around a group of friends led by a 99 cent version of Brandon Routh, and he's about to get married so his entourage decide to throw him a bachelor party in Vegas before things start going awry. What I liked about this movie is that it didn't follow the same formula as the first two parts. The torture in this entry isn't done in private quarters. Rather, it's done publicly in front of the rich clients who are able to choose the form of torture with a "wheel of death" of some sort. It's a great premise, but I would have liked to see it expounded on a bit more. The characters are actually likable this time around. They have tangible chemistry and oddly enough the most amusing scene in the movie is when they're all together in a casino just hanging out being dudes. Mike is the comic relief of the group and has some genuinely funny lines, paired with the actor's spot on portrayal of a slimy douche whose only interest is getting lucky. Unfortunately, he doesn't get nearly enough screen time. The disabled character was an interesting idea, but like most aspects of the movie, wasn't executed to its full potential.The movie itself has plenty of fake outs and twists that will catch you off-guard, and they don't feel thrown in for the sake of it - they're actually pretty clever and keep you invested in the story. Something that surprised me was the movie's third act. After a droning second act, things kick into high gear with an action thriller esque finale that's both exciting and interesting because you actually care and root for the main character. It's a lot of fun and a pleasant change of pace from the downbeat final acts of the first two Hostels.Again, the biggest thing going against Hostel: Part III is the fact that it promises potential but doesn't entirely deliver. I'd put it on par with the previous entries quality-wise, with an exciting third act that elevates the film's enjoyable payoff. I'd like to see another Hostel in the future that continues in this direction but the fact that this was direct-to-video gives little hope to that notion. Regardless, if you saw the first two there's no reason not to give Part III a shot - it may surprise you.

SiksiMiksi Okay, I have to be honest regarding this film and say that I was even more let down than I initially expected to be. I didn't read any reviews or details of the plot line before watching it, but took the liberty of watching Hostel: Part I and Part II before continuing on to this.Whatever Eli Roth had established in the first two films has just completely been damaged by what goes on during this.It really shouldn't be a film from the Hostel franchise, considering that it barely makes reference to any kind of hostel, at all. While the first two movies actually feature the cast booking in to hostels and staying at them, this one features a bachelor party travelling to Las Vegas - which instantly takes any credibility away from it being a horror film. Hostel: Part I & Part II had an almost instant feeling of darkness and intensity to them, which this so called third in the series fails to capture, even once.Add to that the fact that the acting of the cast is about as convincing as a prime ministers election speech and you've already set yourself up to take a downward spiral. Factor in the terrible CGI, - the cockroaches scurrying their way down one of the victim's throats left a lot to be desired - the unbelievable plot line and the terrible writing of this movie and it's almost like watching paint dry.It's obvious that the fact that Eli Roth had nothing to do with this made it greatly suffer. The franchise was well established by him and consequently, if anyone was going to take it further than Hostel: Part II, it should have been him.Of the various things that don't make sense in this film, I have to ask why Amy turned from being a naïve, needy type of character to becoming a not-so-convincing corkscrew wielding sadist? I understand the other characters fighting back while they're held prisoner and up for torture, etc, but her whole look of being pleased about stabbing and tying up a victim just brings the ending down even more.Overall, I ranked this film a 2. Not something that I wish to endure seeing again - mainly because it looked, felt and sounded like a knock off of the first two films.